“The Senate will conclude one of its more unpredictable — and stranger — weeks on Friday when it is expected to approve a bill to finance the federal government, including the health care law that Republicans have been trying to kill.” [NYT]

“House Republican leaders found themselves struggling to secure the votes on Thursday for a debt-ceiling measure they hoped to pass swiftly through the House as the latest salvo in a multifront fiscal fight.” [Hill]

Tensions among Senate Republicans boiled over in an angry exchange Thursday [L.A. Times]

“The U.S. and Iran held their highest-level talks in 36 years on Thursday, in what some officials present described as a substantial meeting over Tehran’s disputed nuclear program that could begin to counter decades of enmity.” [WSJ]

“U.S. and Russian officials now believe that the vast majority of Syria’s nerve agent stockpile consists of ‘unweaponized’ liquid precursors that could be neutralized relatively quickly, lowering the risk that the toxins could be hidden away by the regime or stolen by terrorists.” [WashPost]

An example of just ONE real terrorist attack. The White House and mantis believe that this is comparable to cutting federal spending. Would these people please seek psychiatric treatment NOW.

September 30: Up to two suicide bombers targeted US troops as they handed out sweets to Iraqi children in Baghdad, killing 42 and wounded 141. Of the dead 35 were children, while the wounded included 10 US soldiers & 72 children under the age of 14. Hours earlier a suicide blast in the Abu Ghraib area killed between three and nine people, including one US soldier.

You can listen to the description of the terrorist attack from a soldier that was there.

According to a new poll, 54 percent of the public disapproves of Barack
Obama's handling of the deficit. And yet, as the chart on the right
shows, the deficit is shrinking dramatically. Last year
it dropped by $200 billion, and this year, thanks to a recovering
economy, lower spending from the sequester, and the increased taxes in
the fiscal cliff deal, it's projected to fall another $450 billion.

Fundamental to our understanding of democratic politics across the
developed world is that conservative parties stand for relatively low
levels of government spending, while those on the left of the political
spectrum are prone to higher spending. A new study, released yesterday
by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), blows a hole through that conventional wisdom.

“When
you look at the behaviours of various parties over long periods of time
in different governments, the pattern is that there is no pattern,”
said MEI’s president and chief executive officer, Michel Kelly-Gagnon in
an interview with me yesterday. “The parties that are supposed to be
more in favour of big government end up spending less than we might
expect. And the parties that are supposed to be fiscally conservative
sometimes end up being spendthrifts.”

MEI’s study examined government spending in Canada, Quebec and the
U.S., dating back to the Pierre Trudeau, Robert Bourassa and Richard
Nixon administrations respectively. “In all three cases,” reads the
report, “it is actually left-wing governments that most reduced the
relative size of government.”

MEI reports government size as the ratio of public spending to gross domestic product.

The big “idea” behind the “policy” document is that tax breaks solve all
problems. The tax break is aimed at decoupling insurance from
employment. However, as we all know, deductions give more money back to
people who have higher incomes. Someone in the 25% bracket will see a
$1,875 refund on the $7,500 deduction while someone earning $16,000 (or
just slightly above 138% of poverty line for an individual) will see
either $750 back (10% bracket) or less if there were any other
deductions they were taking. So the tax break idea gives more help to
those who don’t need it.

...etc...

... we have a quasi veto controlling faction that likes to eat anthrax laced tire rims.

Something else to remember about Saint Reagan who ran the most corrupt administration in the last 100 years.

"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official
investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In
terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration
was the worst ever."

How cute. Handy will post the most dubious links possible concerning Obama conspiracy theories, while claiming that released federal documents from the National Security Archives regarding Reagan are wild speculation. Idiocy knows no bounds.

@retiredvetMother Jones can't even come up with an accurate chart of Obama's deficit spending. It was $1.8 trillion in 2009, not the $1.6 shown. That's just for starters. Then there are the real reasons behind the lower defict:

lower spending...now where the hell have I been hearing that? and from who?

Much of the increase in 2013 receipts is due to final tax payments for
2012 deriving from a rush to realize long-term capital gains before the
15% "Bush" tax rate on such gains expired at the end of 2012—and before
the new 23.8% rate on long-term capital gains for higher-income
taxpayers took effect on Jan. 1. How do we know this? Because virtually
the same tax change occurred during the Reagan years, when the long-term
capital gains tax rate jumped eight points, to 28% in 1987, when the
Tax Reform Act took effect, from 20% in 1986.

That's because 'liberal' spending usually helps a country, by investment in research, infrastructure, education (young), re-training (adult) etc. Conservative governments don't like investing in people and country - they like to invest in rich and not even rich that keep their industries domestic - they usually allow for tax cuts for industries that outsource their manufacturing. And of course massive tax cuts and undercuts a country's ability to fund investments which leads to bubbles and cuts in investments.

In a liberal country money for most part stays within the country and creates an environment that benefit companies that are willing to invest in a well educated workforce with good infrastructure.

Conservative governments run deficits increasing military, cut taxes and pool resources among the very rich while the rest of the country breaks down.

I think's it a rather well-timed parry. Unions are upset about Obamacare because it eradicates one the greatest benefits of union membership The public is against it. Implementation is a disaster. And finally Obama is at a low point after his screw-ip with Syria and with a continuing sluggish economy.

The thuggish private investigator hired by the Clintons to intimidate
their political enemies and dig up dirt on Bill’s mistresses has been
convicted on 76 federal criminal charges, including racketeering and
wiretapping.

Anthony Pellicano,
renowned private eye to Hollywood stars, has already served a 30-month
prison sentence for possession of explosives and this week’s convictions
by a Los Angeles jury could make jail his home for years to come. Among
other things the jury found him guilty of racketeering, wiretapping,
wire fraud, identity theft, conspiracy to intercept or use wire
communications and manufacture or possession of a wiretapping device.

Pellicano specialized in digging up dirt for wealthy clients to use
in lawsuits, divorces and contract disputes. He often bribed corrupt
public officials and police officers for the information and was hired
by Hollywood heavy hitters such as Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson and
Elizabeth Taylor as well as the heads of major studios.

You know, when the deficit is falling due to deficit reduction - like ending wars, increase taxes and other reducing features - and you continue to hark on about 'Dah Obama dunnot ever cut evar' you kind sound like an blithering idiot.

Here's a hint for you - he executes on these spending cuts. Meaning he could veto anything that dems and gobers decide but he doesn't. So in essence after these many years the lower deficit is sorta because of the stuff Obama did. No matter how much you deny it. I mean if you didn't play the whole 'party' thing you'd admit it and move on. But instead you simply deny your lying eyes and pretend you're like ultra fair and moderate while driveling all type of 'winger BS. Hey - 2nd rate. You're as fake as a 3 dollar bill.

@collioure@retiredvet Keep posting trash and claiming to be non partisan. The only difference between you, Handy and Paule, is that at least they are honest about where their loyalties are. You are either lying or delusional.

@ahandout And you feel that is comparable to illegally selling weapons to Iran to finance an organization in Central America that was killing and torturing women, children and clergy while bringing drugs into the US? The more fool you.

"We are borrowing money to do this?" When the shortterm interest rate is negative and the longterm interest rate is near zero one would be an idiot not to take advantage of these conditions.

"There is demand just not for what the government wants us to buy. " Most economists, including republican economists like Mark Zandi, all state there is a lack of demand. All data points to a lack of demand and common sense tells you there is a lack of demand due to ongoing delevariging of privately held debt. So back up your statement mister!

So what do the data say? There aren’t many studies of the issue.
But two stand out: Robert Barro’s work and research by Valerie
Ramey, an economist at the University of California–San Diego, on
how military spending influences GDP. Both studies found that
government spending crowds out the private sector, at least a
little. And both found multipliers close to one: Barro’s estimate
is 0.8, while Ramey’s estimate is 1.2. This means that every
dollar of government spending produces either less than a dollar
of economic growth or just a little over a dollar. That’s quite
different from the administration’s favored multiplier of four.
What’s more, Ramey also found evidence that consumer and business
spending actually decline after an increase in government
purchases.

Why this crowding out of private spending? Government spending
comes from three sources: debt, new money, or taxes. In other
words, the government can’t inject money into the economy without
first taking money out of the economy.

@MrObvious@collioure@retiredvet Actually the majority of the decline of the deficit is due to the improved economy which increases tax revenue. Really getting the economy to grow 3+ % of GDP should take care of the deficit problem altogether, deficit reducing measures like the sequester actually hur reducing the deficit, they more than likely have and will have an increasing effect on the deficit. These teabaggers like Collie talk the talk a lot but due to their ignorance can't walk the walk because it is going into the opposite direction of where they believe they are going. I hope that they believe this otherwise I am not nearly cynical enough and I am already plenty cynical.

Maybe what a better solution is for you not to try to pass yourself off as knowledgeable about the US, since you're isolated as a tax-expatriate living in Teh South Of France to protect your corporate interests and have sacrificed your citizenship for it.